使用美国两个大型真实世界数据库对一线伊鲁替尼或阿卡拉布替尼治疗慢性淋巴细胞白血病患者的医疗资源利用和成本进行比较

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kerry A Rogers, Benyam Muluneh, Zaina P Qureshi, Jinghua He, Alex Bokun, Zhijie Ding, Marie-Hélène Lafeuille, Priyanka Gogna, Bruno Emond, Michael Fradley
{"title":"使用美国两个大型真实世界数据库对一线伊鲁替尼或阿卡拉布替尼治疗慢性淋巴细胞白血病患者的医疗资源利用和成本进行比较","authors":"Kerry A Rogers, Benyam Muluneh, Zaina P Qureshi, Jinghua He, Alex Bokun, Zhijie Ding, Marie-Hélène Lafeuille, Priyanka Gogna, Bruno Emond, Michael Fradley","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Real-world evidence comparing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, two Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is limited. <b>Materials & methods:</b> Commercial claims from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus and electronic medical records from Acentrus were used to separately evaluate HRU and costs in CLL/SLL patients initiating first-line (1L) single-agent ibrutinib or acalabrutinib on or after 21 November 2019 (index date). Imputed costs were used for Acentrus using previously published assumptions. Regression analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to compare HRU and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib during 1L therapy. <b>Results:</b> In IQVIA, 537 and 355 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively; in Acentrus, 710 and 373 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively. The mean duration of 1L (in years) was longer for ibrutinib (IQVIA: 1.2; Acentrus: 1.3) than acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.8; Acentrus: 0.9). The number of CLL/SLL-related outpatient visits were significantly lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.86 vs 1.09 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.85, p = 0.018; Acentrus: 0.57 vs 0.74 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.80, p = 0.036). Using claims data for IQVIA and imputed costs for Acentrus, total all-cause costs (IQVIA: mean monthly cost difference [MMCD]: -$764, p = 0.279; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1355, p = 0.004) and CLL/SLL related costs (IQVIA: MMCD: -$649, p = 0.133; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1215, p = 0.004) were lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib. <b>Conclusion:</b> In this large real-world study using a mix of claims data and imputed cost estimates, CLL/SLL patients treated with ibrutinib had longer duration of 1L, fewer days with CLL/SLL-related outpatient services and numerically lower all-cause and CLL/SLL-related costs versus acalabrutinib, showing that ibrutinib can be an optimal cost-effective option in 1L.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":" ","pages":"e240210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs between patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib using two large US real-world databases.\",\"authors\":\"Kerry A Rogers, Benyam Muluneh, Zaina P Qureshi, Jinghua He, Alex Bokun, Zhijie Ding, Marie-Hélène Lafeuille, Priyanka Gogna, Bruno Emond, Michael Fradley\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2024-0210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Real-world evidence comparing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, two Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is limited. <b>Materials & methods:</b> Commercial claims from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus and electronic medical records from Acentrus were used to separately evaluate HRU and costs in CLL/SLL patients initiating first-line (1L) single-agent ibrutinib or acalabrutinib on or after 21 November 2019 (index date). Imputed costs were used for Acentrus using previously published assumptions. Regression analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to compare HRU and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib during 1L therapy. <b>Results:</b> In IQVIA, 537 and 355 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively; in Acentrus, 710 and 373 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively. The mean duration of 1L (in years) was longer for ibrutinib (IQVIA: 1.2; Acentrus: 1.3) than acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.8; Acentrus: 0.9). The number of CLL/SLL-related outpatient visits were significantly lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.86 vs 1.09 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.85, p = 0.018; Acentrus: 0.57 vs 0.74 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.80, p = 0.036). Using claims data for IQVIA and imputed costs for Acentrus, total all-cause costs (IQVIA: mean monthly cost difference [MMCD]: -$764, p = 0.279; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1355, p = 0.004) and CLL/SLL related costs (IQVIA: MMCD: -$649, p = 0.133; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1215, p = 0.004) were lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib. <b>Conclusion:</b> In this large real-world study using a mix of claims data and imputed cost estimates, CLL/SLL patients treated with ibrutinib had longer duration of 1L, fewer days with CLL/SLL-related outpatient services and numerically lower all-cause and CLL/SLL-related costs versus acalabrutinib, showing that ibrutinib can be an optimal cost-effective option in 1L.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e240210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0210\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0210","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较两种布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶抑制剂依鲁替尼和阿卡拉布替尼治疗慢性淋巴细胞白血病和小淋巴细胞淋巴瘤(CLL/SLL)的医疗资源利用率(HRU)和成本的真实证据有限。材料和方法:使用IQVIA PharMetrics Plus的商业声明和Acentrus的电子医疗记录,分别评估在2019年11月21日(索引日期)或之后开始使用一线(1L)单药伊鲁替尼或阿卡拉布替尼的CLL/SLL患者的HRU和成本。Acentrus的估算成本采用先前公布的假设。采用基线特征调整后的回归分析比较伊鲁替尼和阿卡拉布替尼在1L治疗期间的HRU和成本。结果:在IQVIA中,分别有537例和355例患者开始使用1L ibrutinib和acalabrutinib;在Acentrus中,分别有710和373名患者开始使用1L ibrutinib和acalabrutinib。伊鲁替尼的平均1L持续时间(年)更长(IQVIA: 1.2;Acentrus: 1.3)优于acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.8;Acentrus: 0.9)。伊鲁替尼与阿卡拉布替尼的CLL/ sll相关门诊就诊次数显著低于阿卡拉布替尼(IQVIA: 0.86 vs 1.09 /患者每月,比率比:0.85,p = 0.018;Acentrus: 0.57 vs 0.74每个患者每月,比率:0.80,p = 0.036)。使用IQVIA的索赔数据和Acentrus的估算成本,总全因成本(IQVIA:平均每月成本差异[MMCD]: - 764美元,p = 0.279;Acentrus: MMCD: - 1355美元,p = 0.004)和CLL/SLL相关成本(IQVIA: MMCD: - 649美元,p = 0.133;Acentrus: MMCD: - 1215美元,p = 0.004), ibrutinib比acalabrutinib更低。结论:在这项使用索赔数据和估算成本估算的大型现实世界研究中,与阿卡拉布替尼相比,接受伊鲁替尼治疗的CLL/SLL患者的1L持续时间更长,CLL/SLL相关门诊服务的天数更少,全因和CLL/SLL相关成本在数字上更低,表明伊鲁替尼可能是1L的最佳成本选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs between patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with first-line ibrutinib or acalabrutinib using two large US real-world databases.

Aim: Real-world evidence comparing healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, two Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is limited. Materials & methods: Commercial claims from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus and electronic medical records from Acentrus were used to separately evaluate HRU and costs in CLL/SLL patients initiating first-line (1L) single-agent ibrutinib or acalabrutinib on or after 21 November 2019 (index date). Imputed costs were used for Acentrus using previously published assumptions. Regression analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics were used to compare HRU and costs between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib during 1L therapy. Results: In IQVIA, 537 and 355 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively; in Acentrus, 710 and 373 patients initiated 1L ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, respectively. The mean duration of 1L (in years) was longer for ibrutinib (IQVIA: 1.2; Acentrus: 1.3) than acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.8; Acentrus: 0.9). The number of CLL/SLL-related outpatient visits were significantly lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib (IQVIA: 0.86 vs 1.09 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.85, p = 0.018; Acentrus: 0.57 vs 0.74 per-patient-per-month, rate ratio: 0.80, p = 0.036). Using claims data for IQVIA and imputed costs for Acentrus, total all-cause costs (IQVIA: mean monthly cost difference [MMCD]: -$764, p = 0.279; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1355, p = 0.004) and CLL/SLL related costs (IQVIA: MMCD: -$649, p = 0.133; Acentrus: MMCD: -$1215, p = 0.004) were lower for ibrutinib versus acalabrutinib. Conclusion: In this large real-world study using a mix of claims data and imputed cost estimates, CLL/SLL patients treated with ibrutinib had longer duration of 1L, fewer days with CLL/SLL-related outpatient services and numerically lower all-cause and CLL/SLL-related costs versus acalabrutinib, showing that ibrutinib can be an optimal cost-effective option in 1L.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信